Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar vs The State Of Haryana on 8 April, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)108PLR243
JUDGMENT Naresh Chander Jain, J.
1. State of Haryana by issuance of Notification dated 43.1983 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') sought to acquire land measuring 133.68 acres for development and utilization for residential and commercial area, in Sector 8 under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act 1977 in the area of village Patti Mehar Hadbast No. 58 and Sondha Hadbast No. 1-14, Tehsil and District Ambala. The land Acquisition Collector by his Award dated 23.2.1988 granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre for chahi land, Rs. 32,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 16,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land respectively. The landowner-claimants did not feel satisfied with the compensation amount and filed references under Section 18 of the Act and Shri V.P. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge by his Award dated 30th October, 1992 has assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard. The main judgment has been given in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, In the subsequent paragraphs wherever this Court wants to refer to the Award pertaining to the acquisition of land measuring 133.68 acres, the title of the case Bhagwan Dass would be referred to.
2. The landowners feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid Award have filed R.F.A. Nos. 571 to 573, 575 to 587, 589, 590, 615 to 618, 684, 798 to 810, 925, 943, 959, 1162 to 1164, 1050, 1051, 1285 to 1297, 1369, 1370, 1564 to 1568, 1597 to 1603, . 1607, 1611 to 1637, 1972 to 2004, 2222, 2223, 2304, 2305, 2338, 2688 to 2691, 2694 to 2696 of 1993. They have sought enhancement in the amount of compensation whereas the State of Haryana has filed R.F.A. Nos. 1650 to 1819 of 1933 praying for reduction in the amount of compensation.
3. The Haryana State after 1-1/2. month issued another notification under Section 4 of the Act on 19.4.1983 by which land measuring 4.46 acres situated in Patti Mehar, Ambala City was sought to be acquired for the development and utilisation for 'road' in urban estate Ambala City. The land Acquisition Collector by his Award dated September 21, 1984 awarded compensation to the landowners at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre. The District Judge by his Award dated November 26, 1991 under challenge before this Court has assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard. The District Judge while determining the market value of the acquired land at the aforesaid rate disposed of several reference but leading Award has been given in Satish Sethi etc. v. Haryana State and Ors. and, thereafter While dealing with the acquisition of land measuring 4.46 acres, I would be referring to the Award of Satish Sethi in the latter part of the judgment. The landowners feeling aggrieved against the Award of the District Judge have filed R.F.A. Nos. 352, 359, 664 to 668/92 731 to 733, 755, 911, 912, 1026, 1029, 2485 and 2486/92 seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation whereas the State of Haryana has filed R.F.A. Nos. 922, 923, 925, 926, 930, 934, 935, 936, 938, 939 and 940/92 praying for reduction in the amount of compensation.
4. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the parties submitted that since the land in both the set of cases has been acquired by issuance of two notifications dated 43.1983 and 19.4.1983 i.e. within the close proximity of time and since in one set of cases land has been acquired for development and utilisation for 'road' in village Patti Mehar and in the other set of cases for development and utilisation of the acquired land for residential and commercial area in Sector 8 in Patti Mehar, this Court dispose of all the appeals by one common judgment Some of the evidence led by the parties is also common. Consequently, all the appeals are/being disposed of together by this judgment. Although, both the set of cases are being disposed of together by a common judgment, yet I have thought it appropriate to refer to the facts of the cases separately in order to have a clear out picture of the entire evidence. In the first instance, I propose to discuss the facts of the case leading to the Award given in Satish Sethi's case.
5. In the case of Satish Sethi's case the landowners have produced as many as five witnesses and also produced documentary evidence comprising of Exhibits P.1 to P. 7 whereas the State of Haryana apart from producing Dhoop Singh Patwari as RW1 has also produced sale deeds Exhibits R.1 to RA PW. 1 Om Parkash Patwari Halqa Panjokhra deposed that he was Patwari of Patti Mehar earlier and that he had prepared the plan Exh. P.1 The Aks-Shajra of village Patti Mehar as well as the plan of village Jandli, according to the witness, were also prepared by him. PW.2 Surinder Mohan Mittal, an Architect, stated that he prepared the site plan Exh. ?2 after spot inspection. He has further deposed that while preparing the site plan Exh. P.2, he had consulted Aks-Shajra and the revenue record. In cross examination the witness was constrained to admit that he visited the spot during April 1988 and that he prepared the site plan in accordance with the situation existing at the time of his visit. Rajinder Singh PW.3 stated that in the year 1981 he sold two pieces of land adjoining to the road by two separate sale deeds Exh. P3 and Exh. P.4 in Sector 8 to one Sat Pal at the rate of Rs. 215/- and Rs. 213/- per square yard respectively. Out of the two pieces of land, one measured 86-3/5 yards whereas the other measured 91-2/5 yards. He has further deposed that the land was acquired Cor the extension of that very road which adjoins the earlier road adjacent to the land sold by him and that colonies having residential houses, commercial places and industrial places were around the area which had now been acquired. The land sold by him, according to the witness, was having 7 to 8ft. depression, whereas the acquired land was absolutely plain and more valuable. He went on to state that the land sold by him was on one side of the Hissar road and the acquired land was on the other side of the Hissar road. Narinder Singh PW.4 deposed that, he purchased a plot No. 195 in the Anaj Mandi, Ambala City in December 1976 for Rs. 25200/- for the construction of a shop-cum-flat and further stated that the plot measured 10 metres x 4 metres. He stated that he did not bring the letter of allotment or conveyance deed with him. Sector 8, according to him, was situated at a distance of 400-500 yards from his plot. In cross-examination the witness admitted that Anaj Mandi, Ambala City, was not developed area but after the sale of the plot, the Government developed the mandi by laying roads and providing other facilities. Satish Kumar one of the claimants has appeared as PW.5 and deposed that his land situated in Khasra Nos. 4/20/1 and 4/20/2 was acquired and that this land is in continuation of the road already in Sector 8 and that the road has been extended by this acquisition. According to him, the land was worth Rf. 300/- per square yard in the year 1984. He further stated that there were residential colonies such as Arjun Pura, Shastri Nagar, Milap Nagar, Vikash Vihar, Housing Board Colony and Urban Estate near the acquired land. He further deposed that there were New Grain Market and Improvement Trust Shopping Complex near the acquired land. The existence of various banks near the acquired land was also deposed to. The witness further deposed that the Sessions Court was in Patti Mehar. According to him, all the colonies were in existence when the land in question was acquired. The land, according to him, was acquired for the construction of road dividing sectors 8 and 9 of Urban Estate. While elaborating the location of the land, it was further stated by this witness that the acquired land was on the other side of the Sessions Court as Railway Line passes between the two and is adjacent to the new Grain Market. In cross examination, this witness was constrained to admit that the acquired land was situated at a distance of two kilometres from Sessions Court, Ambala City and that Banks were situated at a distance of about one kilo metre from the acquired land- The witness further admitted that the acquired land was of agricultural kind.
On behalf of the State, Dhoop Singh Patwari stepped into the witness box as RW.1. He stated that the land was acquired for constructions of 'road' to congee Sectors 8 and 9 at Ambala City and that there was no commercial site around the acquired land. The acquired land, according to him, was used for agricultural purposes. He has produced three sale deeds Exhibits R.1 to R3 besides the site plan Exh. R.4. The site plan was prepared by him in accordance with the record and Aks- Shajra. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the acquired land abutted on the Ambala-Hissar road. He further stated in the cross-examination that there was a Mandi in between the Ambala-Hissar road and the acquired land. He further stated that grain market was in the process of being developed at the time of acquisition. He expressed ignorance that in the year 1981 the plots in the Grain Market, were sold at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square yard.
Apart from the sale deeds mentioned above, the claimants have produced Awards Exhibits P.5 to P.7 Award Exh. P.5 Pala Singh etc. v. State of Haryana was given by G.C. Mittal, J. in R.F.A. No. 985 of 1981 decided on 18.5.1982 pertaining to the acquisition of 8.59 acres of land situated in village Patti Mehar. The land was acquired under Section 4 of the Act on 305.1978 for the purpose of construction of road and over-bridge on the railway lines passing through the town of Ambala City, G.C. Mittal, J. in Pala Singh's case (supra) has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.
100/- per sq. yard for 3 Kanals 10 Marias abutting on Hissar road and Rs. 70/- per sq. Yard for the rest of the area Le. 65 Kanals 5 Marias. Award Exh. P.6 has been given by Sh. V.M. Jain, Additional District Judge, Ambala in Sudesh Kumar v. State of Haryana. In Sudesh Kumar's case (supra) the Haryana Government acquired land measuring 0.181 acres i.e. 1 Kanal 9 Marias by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 26.9.1978 and the District Judge awarded Rs. 200/- per sq. yard for a part of tile land in Khasra No. 1/25 and front portion of Khasra No. 2/29 while remaining land was evaluated at Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. Exh. P.7 is an Award given by Letters Patent Bench consisting of J.V. Gupta, Chief Justice and R.S. Mongia, J. in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana L.P.A. No. 1340 of 1982 decided on 28.11.1990 evaluating 79.41 acres of land at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard. The land was situated in village Patti Mehar and was acquired under Section 4 of the Act on 30.1.1973.
In the instant cases, the District Judge did not rely upon the sale transactions and assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 100/-per sq. yard by following the Award given by G.C. Mital, J. in Pale Singh's case (supra). The District Judge took the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard into consideration and gave an increase by way of price rise between the date of the notification in the present cases.
Having seen the evidence in Satish Sethi's case (Supra) and the basis for arriving at the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard, it is necessary for me to take into consideration the voluminous evidence produced in the case of other land references which have arisen out of the acquisition of 133.68 acres of land. It has already been observed that the Additional District Judge Shri V.P. Aggarwal while dealing with the aforementioned/acquisition has ¦ given leading Award in the case of Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana. In Bhag-wan Doss's case (supra) the landowners produced as many as ten witnesses besides producing the documentary evidence whereas the State of Haryana has produced only one witness apart from producing some documentary evidence.
PW.1 Pardeep Kumar Ahluwalia whose land has been acquired has stated that the acquired land was about 150 yards away from Ambala-Hissar State Highway No. 2 and that Shakti Nagar, Arjunpura, Milap Nagar and other colonies were quite near to the acquired land. He further deposed that grain market and Sector 10 were also near the acquired land. The existence of primary school and Khalsa High School near the acquired land was also deposed to by this witness. He has further stated that he had agreed to sell the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 425/- per square yard to one Lala Sunder Lal but the agreement did not materialise as the Patwari told the purchaser about the acquisition. In cross-examination he has stated that the acquired land in Sectors 8, 9 and 10 was of the same quality but the value depended upon the distance from the main road. He was further constrained to admit that he did not sell or purchase any land near the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 425/- per square yard. PW.2 Rajinder Singh is another claimant. He has deposed that 75 percent of the acquired land was within the Municipal limits of Ambala City and the remaining 25 percent was adjacent to the acquired land. The acquired land was situated adjoining to the road which runs between Fly over and Manav Chowk. He has further stated that there was new Grain Market on the Western side of the acquired land whereas on the West Sought side of Manav Chowk, Shakti Nagar, Gur Arjan Nagar and Adarsh Nagar were situated. On the Eastern side of the acquired land, there were Sectors 9 and 10 which were developed by H.U.DA On the Southern side was Parsu Nagar and abadi of Rattangarh and Water works according to this witness. He has further stated that he sold some land adjoining to the acquired land in 1981 vide sale deeds Exhibits P.1 and P.2 and that the acquired land was better than the land sold by him. The acquired land, according to him, was sold in plots and not in acre as it was sold for abadi. The land sold through sale deeds Exhibits P.1 and P.2 was 10 feet deep. He has further deposed about the price rise since the time he sold the land. In cross-examination, he has stated that the texture of the land acquired for Sectors 9 and 10 was the same as that of the acquired land. Fly over, according to him was at a distance of about two acres from his acquired land. He has further deposed about the acquisition of his land in Sector 9 and about the grant of compensation against which appeal was pending. PW. 3 Ram Saran had purchased one marla of land situated in Patti Mehar Manav Chowk, Ambala City for a sum of Rs. 52,000/- in the name of his sons. The land purchased by him alongwith some other land of others was acquired by a notification. The acquired land, according to him, was adjacent to the new Grain Market. He stated that he purchased a plot measuring 24 square metres situated in the Grab Market from the H.U.DA. for a sum of Rs. 36,500/-on 5.11.1981. In cross-examination he was constrained to admit that he purchased the land by virtue of sale deed Exh. PW3/1 after the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. He has further admitted that the plot was purchased by him for the construction of shop and that the acquired land was lying vacant at the time of the acquisition. According to him, his acquired land was situated at a distance of 200 yards from Manav Chowk. The land acquired for Sector 9 and the acquired land according to him, was of the same quality. He has denied the suggestion of the Government Pleader that the market value of the acquired land was not more than Rs. 52,000/- per acre at the time of notification. Kirpa Ram Patwari PW. 4 has produced the site plan Exh. P3 which was prepared in accordance with the Aks-Shajra of village Patti Mehar. The extract of Aks-shajra showed the location of Sector 8. PW.5 Surinder Mohan Mittal, a draftsman has stepped into the witness box to produce the scaled site plan Exh. P.4 prepared by him showing the distance of various institutions from Sector 8. In cross-examination he stated that the institutions shown by him in the site plan were as they existed on the date of his visit to the spot and that he completed the site plan on 30.7.1992. The level of the land in Sectors 8 and 9 according to him, was approximately the same. He further deposed that Lajpat Nagar, Milap Nagar, Sharda Nagar and Uttam Nagar and Shastri Nagar were partly developed colonies. It deserves to be mentioned here that this witnesses has appeared as PW.2 in Sathish Sethi's case as well. PW.6 Gurmukh Singh has purchased site of booth No. 161 measuring 3x8 meters for a sum of Rs. 19000/- in an auction held on 8.1.1989 by the New Mandi Township Haryana. The booth was in Sector 8. In cross-examination, he stated that the site of the booth is located in the new Grain Market, Ambala City and that the limit of Sector 8 starts after crossing the Grab Market To the similar effect is the statement of Manohar Lal PW.7 who is another purchaser of booth of equal dimension from the New Mandi Township Haryana. Mohinder Pal Patwari PW. 8 has testified about the extension of limits of the Ambala City Municipality through notification dated 21.2.1974. The limits of Municipality is shown by red line X-Y in the site plan Exb. PA He has further Stated that the portion shown in the North of this line is within the limits of Ambala City Municipality. In cross-examination, he stated that some part of Sector 9 also falls within the limits of Ambala City towards North of the red line X-Y and that this red line extended further in the East upto the Railway line. He stated that he could not depose about the quality of the land in Sectors 8 and 9 as he has not seen the same. Sawraj Verma PW. 9 stated that there were 86 Safeda trees standing in his acquired land and that its approximate value was Rs. 500/- per tree. He deposed about the inadequacy of the Award of the land as well as the trees. In cross-examination, he stated that he had planted the Safeda trees in the years 1981 and the costs of each tree was 25 Paise and the labour of planting the tree was extra. He did not remember the name of the Expert from whom he got the trees valued. Jaswant Singh PW.10 is another claimant whose land measuring 22 kanals 16 Marias was acquired. He stated that he had a tubewell in his land and its bore was in the unacquired land. The State of Haryana according to him, did not give him any compensation in respect of the underground pipe line and three main holes which were situated in the acquired land. He has deposed about some fruit trees and the cost of construction of pipe lines which were Rs. 20,000/-.
He further stated that the adjacent land had earlier been acquired in October 1978 and that he had been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard in respect of that land by the High Court vide Award Exhibit P.29. It is necessary to observe at this stage that no grievance was made before me regarding valuation of trees, tubewell etc. The State of Haryana produced RW.1 Dhoop Singh Patwari (who also appeared the case of Satish Sethi) working in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector. He has stated that he had seen the acquired land and that village Patti Mehar is a big village. The entire acquired land, according to him except the land by the side of the road was, agricultural in nature. He has stated that only approach to the acquired land was from Ambala-Hissar road. He has further stated that the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, only a grab market existed near the acquired land and that there was no other development. The acquired land, according to him, was situated at a distance of about 1-V2 kilometer from the over bridge. He has deposed that he had seen the acquired land and that quality of land in Sectors 8 and 9 was the same. He further stated that Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation of Rs. 52000/-in respect of the land acquired for Sector 9 which has been enhanced by Court to Rs. 57000/- per acre vide Ex. P.1. He admitted that Railway Station Ambala City, Bus Stand Ambala City, Dev Smaj Ambala City, Sessions Court Ambala City are parts of Patti Mehar. In Second breath he corrected himself by saying that he was not sure about the Railway Station Ambala City. The witness admitted that Shri M.S. Nagra, District Judge, awarded compensation of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard for the land which was acquired for Sector 9 and Rs. 100/- per sq. yard for the land adjoining the road. He pleaded ignorance to the effect that Shastri Nagar, Shakti Nagar etc. were located in the area of Patti Mehar. He further stated that the award of Rs. 100/- given by Shri M.S. Nagra, District Judge, Ambala, was in respect of the land by the side of the road which passes by the side of Sector 8. He further admitted that there was only a grain market in Between the acquired land and Ambala-Hissar road. In further cross-examination by another counsel, he admitted that Sector 7 was located on the other side of the railway line. He stated that it was incorrect that Durga Colony and other colonies were in existence by the side of Sector 8 before the acquisition of the land. He stared that he had not seen Sarda Nagar. He admitted that Micro-wave Tower was in Patti Mehar but he could not say whether it was in the middle of the acquired land; The area of village Saundha which was acquired was stated to be towards Southern side of the land of Patti Mahar. He has further deposed that Shri M.S. Nagra, District Judge, Ambala, granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- per acre for the land acquired in village Saundha in the case of one Buta Ram and that the acquired land of village Saundha is adjacent to the acquired land of Patti Mehar. He admitted that road leading to Sector 9 goes through the land of Patti Mehar. The existence of Water works in Sector 9 was also admitted. He pleaded ignorance about the existence of 30/40 houses by the side of micro-wave tower. He admitted about the existence of shops by the side of Ambala Hissar road but could not say whether the same were in existence for the last thirty years. The existence of Zimidara Petrol Pump on Ambala-Hissar road was admitted. He further stated that Grain Market was not part of Sector-8. He was categorical in his statement that there was no building in existence before the acquisition in question. In further cross-examination by another Advocate, this witness admitted that some part of khasra No. 4/20/1 was acquired for Sector 9 and compensation for the aforementioned khasra was given by Shri M.S. Nagra, District Judge, Ambala, at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. He has further admitted that some part of the afore-mentioned khasra No. has been acquired for Sector 8 by way of present gazette notification.
Apart from the oral evidence referred to above, a large number of sale deeds have been produced by the landowners, the chart of which is given below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Exhibit Date of Area sold Amount of Approximate rate
No. sale sale con- per square yard
deed. sideration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. P.1 12.3.1981 91.2/5 sq.yd. 19,383/- Rs. 200/-
2. P.2 14.5.1981 86.3/5 sq.yd. 18,000 Rs. 200/-
3. Pw3/A 25.10.1983 30 sq.yd. 15,000 Rs. 500/-
4. P.7 10.2.1983 12-1/2 Marlas 18,000 Rs. 50/-
(375 sq.yd)
5. P.9 14.1.1980 16 sq.yd. 6,000 Rs. 375/-
6. P.10 14.1.1980 15 sq.yd. 4,000 Rs. 316/-
7. P.11 14.1.1980 13 sq.yd. 4,000 Rs. 307/-
8. P.12 15.5.1987 60.6 sq.yd. 80,000 Rs. 1300/-
9. P.24 18.8.1978 200 sq.yd. 6,000 Rs. 30/-
10. P.26 6.5.1980 180 sq.yd. 3,000 Rs. 17/-
11. P.27 6.5.1980 65 sq.yd. 1,000/- Rs. 15/-
12. P.28 6.5.1980 238 sq.yd. 3,000/- Rs. 14/-
13. P.30 23.12.1980 354-1/2 sq.yd. 7,000/- Rs. 12/-
14. P.31 18.5.1981 306 sq.yd. 6,000/- Rs. 20/-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The details of plots sold in auction and allotted by Administrator, Mandi Township is as under:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sr.No. Exhibit Area of plot Sale Consideration Sale Price per
square yard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. PW3/2 24 sq. meter Rs. 36300/- Rs. 1500/-
2. P-5 24 sq. meter Rs. 19,100/- Rs. 800/-
3. P-6 24 sq. meter Rs. 19,000/- Rs. 800/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As many as 11 awards have been given by different courts at different times. The following chart gives clearly the Exhibit No. the date of the notification, the date of the award, name of the court, the amount of compensation awarded by such courts and the place of acquisition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Exhibit Date of Date of Name of the Amount of Place of
No. No. Notifi- award court compen- acquisi-
cation sation tion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. P.13 30.1.1973 23.3.85 Sh.V.M Jain Rs.70/- Patti-
A.D.J Ambala sq.yard. Mehar
2. P.14 19.4.1983 26.11.91 Sh.M.S.Nagra Rs.lOO/- -do-
A.D.J.Ambala p.s.yard.
3. P.15 20.10.1981 14.2.92 -do- Rs.338,800/- Saundha
per acre
4. P.16 6.12.1988 10.2.92 -do- -do- Patti Acharjan
5. P.17 26.9.1978 12.11.84 Sh.V.M.Jain Rs.200/- Over Bridge
A.D.J.Ambala Rs.100/- bridge Hissar
Road
6. P.18 26.5.1981 9.5.93 Sh.M.S.Nagra Rs.3,38,000/- Patti Mehar
D.J. Ambala per acre & Jandli.
7. P.19 (Sic).2.1973 15.5.80 G.C.Mittal Rs.70/-per Ambala City
J. sq.yard.
8. P.20 30.5.1978 18.5.82 -do- Rs.100/- Patti Mehar
Rs.70/-per
sq. yard.
9. P.21 not given 22.2.92 C.J.B.C. Rs.70/- Not given
Verma & p.s.yard
Ashok Bhan
10. P.29 30.5.1978 18.5.82 G.C.Mittal J. Rs.1OO/- Patti
Rs.70/- p. Mehar
s.yd.
11. R.1 26.5.1981 27.6.1984 C.B.Jaglian Rs.57,000/- -do-
A.D.J. per acre.
Ambala.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After discussing the oral and documentary evidence, Shri V.P. Aggarwal, Addl. Distt. Judge has assessed the market value of the acquired land by placing reliance upon Exh. P.20 an Award given by G.C. Mittal, J. It deserves to be noticed at this stage that Exh. P.20 is the same Award which has been relied upon by Sh. M.S. Nagra, District Judge and which was exhibited as Exh.P.5 in the case of Satish Sethi It may also be recalled that the Award was given in the case of Pala Singh by G.C. Mittal, J. pertaining to a notification dated 30th May, 1978 and the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of road and over bridge in village Patti Mehar. Shri M.S. Nagra, District Judge had given enhancement for the time lag between the two dates of the notifications i.e. in the case of Pala Singh and in the present cases. Shri V.P. Aggarwal, Addl. District Judge in the case of Bhagwan Dass also gave enhancement by a sum of Rs. 30/- per sq.yd. and determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq.yard. While Shri V.P. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard for the entire land however, a distinction has been made in the case of acquisition of land in Rectangle No. 1, Killa No. 25/2 and 25/3 for which compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. yard has been granted to the land-owners.
6. The counsel for the landowners and the State have been heard by me at great length. On behalf of the landowners, it has been argued that the acquired land at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was situated within the Municipal Limits and that the same had potentiality for being used for residential and commercial purposes. Pointed attention of this Court was drawn to the statements of PW.1 Pardeep Kumar, P.W2 Rajinder Singh and PW3 Ram Saran in the case of Bhagwan Das coupled with the statement of PW.5 Surinder Mohan Mittal a draftsman, about the situation of the acquired land. It was argued that the land in dispute was acquired for establishing Sector 8 and that the same was situated on the other side of the railway lines i.e. towards Hissar-Kaithal road. It was also the argument of the counsel that bridge over railway lines bad since been constructed and, therefore, the acquired land should be evaluated at the same rate as has been given in other Awards pertaining to the developed colonies. The counsel further argued that the acquired land was situated at a distance of 150 yards away from Ambala-Hissar Highway No. 2 and several colonies like Shakti Nagar, Milap Nagar etc. adjoined the acquired land. The existence of grain market established by the Haryana Government near the acquired land was another factor in the submission of the counsel, which warranted fixation of much higher compensation than the one which has been awarded by the land acquisition Court. It was further pointed out that Sector 10 of H.U.DA was near the acquired land. Pointing out to the awards given by the courts on earlier occasions, it was argued that this Court should assess the market value of the acquired land by giving necessary premium by way of price rise over the valuation fixed by the Land Acquisition Court for the land measuring 3.48 acres which was acquired on 30.1.1973 giving rise to the Award Exh. P.13 as the same was also situated in the Patti Mehar. While elaborating this argument, it was contended that Exh. P.13 was relied upon even by the Letters Patent Bench in L.P.A. No. 1340 of 1982 Om Parkash v. State of Haryana decided on 28.11.1990 by a Division Bench of this Court, and, therefore, this Court should after making Exh. P.13 as the basis for assessing the market value of the acquired land add the necessary premium for the price rise for 10 years. Learned counsel for the claimants has also relied upon Ex.P.17 an award given by the District Judge and another award given by G.C. Mittal, J. in Regular First Appeal No. 245 of 1979 for claiming higher amount of compensation. It was also argued that even the Additional District Judge has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. yard for the land acquired in Rect. No. 1 Killa No. 25 and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to the same compensation for the entire land.
7. The counsel for the State in reply to the arguments of the counsel for the landowners has argued that the acquired land was agricultural in nature having tubewells for irrigating the fields and trees like equlyptus, guava and galgals were standing thereupon. It was further argued that there was ample evidence on the file of the case to show that the acquired land was situated on the other side towards Kaithal and that Ambala town was situated towards G.T.Road. It was further argued that the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Police Lines, Civil Hospital were on the side of the city whereas the acquired land was on the other side towards Kaithal across railway lines and in view thereof it cannot be said that the land had high potentialities for commercialisation. It was further argued that no other award except the award which has been relied upon by the Additional District Judge was relevant for assessing the market value of the acquired land. Sale deeds, according to the counsel for the State, being of small areas were neither comparable nor relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the counsel for the parties. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits and the same had high potentialities for being developed into residential and commercial area, while the counsel for the State could not deny the factum of the land having high potentialities, he is quite right in his submission that the potentialities of the acquired land cannot be described to be so high that each and every transaction of sale is relevant and comparable viz-a-viz the acquired land. He has drawn pointed attention of this Court to an admitted fact that the acquired land at the time of notification was agricultural in nature. In fact, in depth examination of the oral evidence to which reference has been made above, would make it clear that barring one award to be discussed in the later part of the judgment, no other award can be said to be relevant and comparable. PW5, Satish Kumar Sethi, a claimant admitted in his statement that the acquired land was on the other side of Sessions Court as Railway line passed between the Sessions Court and the acquired land. He further admitted that the acquired land was situated at distance of 2 Kilometers from the Sessions Court, Ambala City and that the Banks were situated at a distance of one kilometer from the acquired land. This witness has further admitted that the acquired land was of agricultural kind, PW.1 Pradeep Kumar Ahluwalia, who has deposed that he had agreed to sell the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 425/- per sq. yard to one Sunder Lai, has failed to produce any agreement on the record of the case. Even Sunder Lal, the so-called vendee was not produced. PW.2 Rajender Singh was frank enough to admit that 75% of the acquired land was within Municipal limits of Ambala. He further admitted that the acquired land was situated adjacent to the road which runs between fly over and Manav Chowk. The admission, of Surender Mohan Mittal, PW5, a draftsman to the effect that the institutions shown by him in the site plan were as they existed on the date of his visit to the spot, shows that there was no much development in the year 1983 near the acquired land. The admission on his part that Lajpat Nagar, Milap Nagar, Sharda Nagar, Uttam Nagar and Shastri Nagar were partly developed colonies, also shows that the area in vicinity of the acquired land was only developing. Leaving aside the factum of land being agricultural, the statement of P.W.9 Sawraj Verma to the effect that he had Safeda trees in his land and the admission on the part of P.W. 10 Jaswant Singh that he had a tube-well in his land, are the factors where from it can be concluded that the potentialities of the acquired land cannot be held by a Judicial Court to be so high as to make each and every sale transaction or an award given by the court to be relevant and comparable for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land in question. Even if the aforesaid minus points are ignored, Award Exh. P.20 (equivalent to Exh. PS) would be the only relevant award in view of the location of the acquired land which was beyond the railway lines on Kaithal-Hissar road.
9. It has remained undisputed before me that land measuring 3.48 acres has been acquired for development land utilisation for 'road' dividing Sectors 8 and 9, whereas 133.48 acres of land has been acquired for development and utilisation for residential and commercial area. Both the pieces of land are near to each other. It has also been established that the acquired land in all these reference is situated in Patti Mehar and, therefore, the same has to be evaluated either by following the valuation given in the sale deed or allotment letter issued by the local authorities or in one award or the other. The question is as to which documentary evidence would be a safe guide for assessing the market value of the acquired land. In the first instance, documentary evidence produced in the case of Satish Sethi is proposed to be discussed. I do not propose to place reliance upon the two sale deeds Exhibits P.1 and P.2 on the short ground that by virtue there of two plots measuring 91-2/5 sq.yards and 86-3/5 sq. yards respectively were sold which were very small pieces. Award Exh. P.6 given in the case of Sudesh Kumar v. State of Haryana would also not furnish any safe guide to determine the market Value of the acquired land for the simple reason that the Additional District Judge' was evaluating a very small piece of land measuring 1 Kanal 9 Marias which was acquired for the construction of over bridge on the crossing of Am-bala-Hissar road. Not only that, the Additional District Judge bifurcated even this small area of the acquired land into two pieces and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard, for the land composed in Khasra No. 1/25 and for a part of front portion of Khasra No. 2/29 measuring 17-2/9 sq.yard which was under the shop of a claimant whereas for the remaining land of Khasra No. 2/29 compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq.yard. Such an award, surely, cannot form the basis for evaluating a big chunk of land.
10. Exh. P.7 Om Parkash v. State of Haryana - a judgment given by the Letters patent Bench - evaluating the land measuring 79.41 acres by notification dated 30.1.1973 at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard is not at all comparable on the ground that in Om Parkash's case (Supra), Exh. P.7, no location has been given, I went through the award of the learned Single Judge after sending for the same from the Registry. It was detected that the main award was not given in the case of Om Parkash v. State of Haryana but in the case of Kharaiti Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana R.F.A. No. 1642 of 1989, copy of the award given in Kharaiti Lal's case (supra) has been placed on the file of the present cases. The perusal of the award in Kharaiti Lal's case (supra) makes it clear that the land in the decided case was situated somewhere in the Ambala City, Sessions Court and Model Town. The following observations of the learned Single Bench in Kharaiti Lal's case would show the nice location of the land acquired:-
"Plans Exhibits 'A-6' and 'A-20' have been filed by the claimant whereas the State has filed plan Exhibit R3 which show that the acquired land abuts on one side on the metalled road going from Ambala City to Sessions Court and Model Town and on the other side it abuts on the road which goes from Ambala City to Hissar. The acquired land is further bifurcated by a road which goes along the Industrial Training Institute and the Haryana Roadways Workshop, besides a road which runs through Khasra No. 4S2 forming triangle at the junction where the first two roads mentioned above, meet. In fact, the acquired land is mostly an open space which is sandwiched between the Sessions Court, Police Lines, Industrial Training Institute, Ambala, Municipal Park, Bus-stand, Haryana Roadways Workshop and other buildings. Therefore, it is clear that not only the acquired land had the potential for the use of commercial and residential purposes, in fact it was urban property, well within the municipal limits and had the value for being used for commercial and residential purposes and, therefore, has to be valued as such."
11. Coming to the documentary evidence produced by the parties in the case of Bhagwan Dass's case, I must hasten to add that the documents Exhibits P.1 and P.4 are the same sale transactions which have been produced in the case of Satish Kumar Sethi's case which have already been discarded above Sale deeds PW3/A, P.7, P.9, P.10, P.11, P.12, P.24, P.26, P27, P.28, P30 and P31 are ruled out of consideration they being transactions of sale covering small areas, the minimum being 13 sq. yards in one sale deed and the maximum being 375 sq. yards. Sale transactions of such tiny areas are neither comparable nor relevant vis-a-vis the acquired land which runs into more than 137 acres.
12. Allotment of plots of 24 sq. meters by way of Exhibits P.3/2, P.S and P.6 by the Administrator, New Mandi Township, Haryana, meant for the construction of booths can by no stretch of imagination be held to be a safe guideline for fixing the market value of the acquired land.
13. Adverting to the Awards produced by the claimants, I am of the considered view that no other Award except the Award Exhibit P.20-Pala Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana R.F.A.N0.985 of 1981-in the case of Bhagwan Dass which is equivalent to Exh. P.5 in the case of Satish Kumar Sethi, is relevant. Before examining the relevancy of this Award, it is necessary to deal with other Awards, the relevancy of which was debated by the counsel for the landowners.
14. Taking up the award Exh. P. 13 which has been given in the case of Ch. Man Mohan Singh Liberhan v. State of Haryana, it is necessary to straightway see the location of the land. On the perusal of the award given in Ch. Man Mohan Singh Liberhan's case (supra), an impression has been left upon this Court that the land acquired in this case was better situated as compared to the land in the present case. It was near the Haryana Roadways Workshop, Mixy Chowk, Bal Bhavan, the site of Vijay Cinema where-as the land acquired in the present cases was after the crossing towards Kaithal-Hissar side. The construction of fly over bridge before the notification in question in the present cases has not been proved on the record of the case by production of any evidence and, therefore, the Award Exh. P.18 is irrelevant. Moreover, this Court is disinclined to place irrelevant. Moreover, this Court is disinclined to place reliance upon an Award which has been given by the Additional District Judge for the acquisition of the land in the year 1973 in preference to the Award given by a Single Bench of this Court dealing with the acquisition of land in the year 1978. The Award Exh. P.17 in the case of Bhagwan Dass is the same Award which is Exh. P.6 in the case of Satish Sethi and this has always been held to be not relevant by me while dealing with the case of Satish Sethi. The decision given in R.F.A. No. 245 of 1979 Yagya Parkash Gupta v. State of Haryana, rendered by a Single Bench of this Court would also be not a safe guide for fixing the market value of the acquired land as the land there in measuring 11 Kanals 2 Marias was acquired in February, 1973 for extension of municipal park within the town of Ambala City. The learned Judge found that the acquired land in Yagya Parkash Gupta's case (supra) was situated near the important institutions like College-Hostel, Post Office, Bus Stand, Civil Courts, Industrial School, Housing Board and one of the main roads of the Ambala City. In view of the nice location of the acquired land in the case of Yagya Parkash Gupta's case (supra) and the factum of the notification having been issued long time back, the Award Exh. P.19 cannot be said to be comparable and relevant vis-a-vis the acquired land.
15. The counsel for the claimants did not press into service any other Award except the ones discussed above. Even otherwise, the Additional District Judge Sh. V.P. Aggarwal in an ably written judgments has discussed other Awards of the Land Acquisition Courts and held them to be irrelevant. The Additional District Judge Sh. V.P. Aggarwal has given cogent reasonings while discarding other Awards and sale transactions and on its careful perusal this Court is inclined to endorse the same.
16. The afore-mentioned discussion leads me to the discussion of Award given by a Single Bench of this Court Exh. P.20, Pala Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana' which is Exh. P.5 in Satish Sethi's case. In Pala Singh's case (supra) this Court assessed the market value of the land measuring 68 Kanals 15 Marias which is equivalent to 8.59 acres at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard barring a strip of land 'CD' measuring 3 kanals 10 marlas which was evaluated at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq.yard. The learned Judge was dealing with the land situated in village. Patti Mehar within the municipal limits and the land appeared to be very close to the acquired land inasmuch as the same was acquired for the construction of a road and an over-bridge on the railway lines. The Additional District Judge, in my considered view, has rightly relied upon the Award given in the case of Pala Singh and the same deserves to be followed in the present cases on account of close proximity from time point of view inasmuch as the difference in the two dates of notification is 5 years whereas the difference would have been 10 years if one was to follow the Award given in the case of Ch. Man Mohan Singh Liberhan v. State of Haryana. However, while giving price rise at the rate of 12 per cent, the Additional District Jude has committed an error at the time of calculation. The award in Pala Singh's case was given on 30.5.1978 whereas the two notifications acquiring the land have been given in March and April, 1983 and therefore, the landowners are entitled, to premium in view of price rise between the two dates of notifications for the period of 5 years at the rate of 12 per cent per annum upon the valuation of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard. Thus I assess the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 112/- per sq. yard.
17. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to observe that no correction in the evaluation of the acquired land in Rectangle No.1 Khasra No. 25/1/2 and 25/1/3 is needed simply for the reason that the counsel for the parties did not address any argument about the aforementioned khasra numbers. I specifically put it to Mr. Goyal whether any appeal has been filed either by the State of Haryana or by the owners of the aforementioned khasra numbers but he was not in a position to throw any light, although, he took pains to see the various appeals which were listed for hearing. In view thereof, this Court is not touching the market value of the acquired land of aforementioned khasra numbers. If any appeals have been filed by either of the parties pertaining to the acquisition of the khasra numbers the same would be seen as and when the cases are listed. In case, no appeal has been filed by either of the parties pertaining to the acquisition of aforementioned khasra numbers, the evaluation given by the Land Acquisition Court would naturally remain intact.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the State Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs whereas the appeals filed by the landowners are allowed with proportionate costs to the extent indicated above. They would also have statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.